Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page AR-15 » AR Discussions
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Site Notices
Posted: 12/17/2014 4:11:33 PM EDT
I don't quite understand the government profile barrels. It doesn't make sense to me to have it pencil thin underneath the handguards, only to have it thicker in front of the gas block/fsb. I know it must be thin under the handguards to accept the M203, but if that is done, then why bother having the thicker contour up front?

People will say rigidity and heat properties, but I simply don't think that applies. Sure the muzzle end of the barrel will be slightly more rigid, however the thin section under the handguard is where most of the whip will be. Likewise, the pressures and heat will be greater towards the chamber, so the barrel under the handguard will be most effected by heat.
Link Posted: 12/17/2014 4:21:04 PM EDT
[#1]
It's the government, it doesn't have to make sense.

It's a vestigial remnant of a convoluted development process.
Link Posted: 12/17/2014 7:38:43 PM EDT
[#2]
That's why I only use M4A1 profile.
Link Posted: 12/17/2014 7:55:34 PM EDT
[#3]
Supposedly (according to the story) , Armories were reported that G.I.s were bending their pencil M-16 bbls forward of the front sight using them as pry bars to open crates and such.

Turns out that many of the reports of bent bbls, were because the armory inspection guages were hanging up on copper residue at the rough edges of gas ports.

Not any real reason to make the thin then thick bbl, but getting the .GOV to ever admit they were wrong and then go correct it...   Good Luck!!!

Link Posted: 12/17/2014 9:52:54 PM EDT
[#4]
I always thought it was thicker at the end so it doesn't get hot as quick where you might touch it doesn't get hot as quickly. Also, a suppressor probably benefits from the thicker end to support it. As for why it is cut out under the handguard, maybe this was done to make it lighter, but also to keep the hot barrel further from the handguards. I for one do not want a heavier barrel, but I do think a pencil barrel would be cool. I don't understand why a pencil barrel would overheat before a M4 gvt barrel, if it the same width in the middle though.
Link Posted: 12/17/2014 10:59:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
That's why I only use M4A1 profile.
View Quote


Friends don't let friends use government profile barrels...

Link Posted: 12/17/2014 11:24:30 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Supposedly (according to the story) , Armories were reported that G.I.s were bending their pencil M-16 bbls forward of the front sight using them as pry bars to open crates and such.

Turns out that many of the reports of bent bbls, were because the armory inspection guages were hanging up on copper residue at the rough edges of gas ports.

Not any real reason to make the thin then thick bbl, but getting the .GOV to ever admit they were wrong and then go correct it...   Good Luck!!!

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Supposedly (according to the story) , Armories were reported that G.I.s were bending their pencil M-16 bbls forward of the front sight using them as pry bars to open crates and such.

Turns out that many of the reports of bent bbls, were because the armory inspection guages were hanging up on copper residue at the rough edges of gas ports.

Not any real reason to make the thin then thick bbl, but getting the .GOV to ever admit they were wrong and then go correct it...   Good Luck!!!



Mostly right. The gas port issue was discovered after the M16A2 had been adopted.

Posted by member Coldblue:

Since The M16A2 Product Improvement Program (1980-1983) was my program, this is the down & dirty on the barrel thickness issue.

We (Marines) were replacing a lot of "bent" barrels that were determined to be "bent" because the Armorer's Bore Drop Gauge would not freely pass through some barrels during Ordnance Inspections (LTI's). So the Logisitcs people had "Barrels Bending" on their list of "M16A1" things to "Improve" right after listing "Handguards Breaking."

We "experts" thought this bending was from rough handling like during bayonet drills, etc., as an absence of any mid-barrel handguard damage in these rifles made one assume the fulcrum of such bending was the bayonet lug. So we made that part of the barel thicker because we did not want the excess weight of a full length heavy barrel. In testing using the bayonet lug as a fulcrum, and applying calibrated mechanical pressure to the muzzle, the new barrel was about 9 times more resistant to bend and take a set than an M16A1 profile. So we went with this "improvement."

However, soon after I started using a bore scope with a video recorder and monitor to inspect "bent" barrels. What I found was a mound of bullet jacket material at their gas ports. This build up was caused by a burr left from drilling/reaming the gas port. This was where the Armorer's Drop Gauge was geting stuck. When we removed this "mound", the barrels would all pass the Drop Gauge. We let Colt know what we had deduced, and that is one reason they kept models of "A2's" in their line-up with A1 profile barrels. However, the A2 profile was already down the road for the US Military. So about the only advantage of the A2 profile was to give the rifle a little more muzzle hang. This was noted by most all the Operational Test paticipants, especially when they fired the standing/off-hand leg of our rifle qualification course.

So my advice to mlitary armorers is to never replace a bent barrel until you visually check the gas port, or at least scrub the hell out of the gas port area with a new bore brush and an electric drill. And thank God for chrome bores!
Link Posted: 12/17/2014 11:29:05 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Friends don't let friends use government profile barrels...

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Failures/destructivetestedbarrrels01.jpg
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's why I only use M4A1 profile.


Friends don't let friends use government profile barrels...

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Failures/destructivetestedbarrrels01.jpg


Whoa! What's the story behind these?
Link Posted: 12/17/2014 11:37:22 PM EDT
[#8]
Destructive testing of M4 barrels...high pressure + thinnest part of the barrel = failure.

This is with a very high rate of fire that most of us will never see, but it illustrates the poor design of the M4 (or government in general) barrel profile.
Link Posted: 12/17/2014 11:38:49 PM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Whoa! What's the story behind these?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's why I only use M4A1 profile.


Friends don't let friends use government profile barrels...

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Failures/destructivetestedbarrrels01.jpg


Whoa! What's the story behind these?

looks like somebody had some fun
Link Posted: 12/17/2014 11:48:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Friends don't let friends use government profile barrels...

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Failures/destructivetestedbarrrels01.jpg
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's why I only use M4A1 profile.


Friends don't let friends use government profile barrels...

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Failures/destructivetestedbarrrels01.jpg



Correct me if I'm wrong.

Aren't the standard lightweight barrels the same profile as gov't profile under the handguards?  The lightweights are thinner outside the handguards (in front of the gas block), so the barrels would basically handle high-rate firing about the same, with the same results? (Considering same materials in manufacture).

I still prefer a somewhat heavier profile, but I also will never approach the rate of fire those barrels saw. Youtube videos show some of that destructive testing, it was brutal (and all full-auto with many mags of ammo).
Link Posted: 12/17/2014 11:50:43 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Correct me if I'm wrong.

Aren't the standard lightweight barrels the same profile as gov't profile under the handguards?  The lightweights are thinner outside the handguards (in front of the gas block), so the barrels would basically handle high-rate firing about the same, with the same results? (Considering same materials in manufacture).

I still prefer a somewhat heavier profile, but I also will never approach the rate of fire those barrels saw. Youtube videos show some of that destructive testing, it was brutal (and all full-auto with many mags of ammo).
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's why I only use M4A1 profile.


Friends don't let friends use government profile barrels...

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Failures/destructivetestedbarrrels01.jpg



Correct me if I'm wrong.

Aren't the standard lightweight barrels the same profile as gov't profile under the handguards?  The lightweights are thinner outside the handguards (in front of the gas block), so the barrels would basically handle high-rate firing about the same, with the same results? (Considering same materials in manufacture).

I still prefer a somewhat heavier profile, but I also will never approach the rate of fire those barrels saw. Youtube videos show some of that destructive testing, it was brutal (and all full-auto with many mags of ammo).


I think you're correct in that a lightweight profile barrel would have failed the same way. However the shooter's arm would have been less tired after holding the lighter barrel for all those rounds. Therefore reinforcing the reasonings for my thread of what benefit does a gov contour have over a lightweight?
Link Posted: 12/18/2014 12:06:32 AM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I think you're correct in that a lightweight profile barrel would have failed the same way. However the shooter's arm would have been less tired after holding the lighter barrel for all those rounds. Therefore reinforcing the reasonings for my thread of what benefit does a gov contour have over a lightweight?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's why I only use M4A1 profile.


Friends don't let friends use government profile barrels...

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Failures/destructivetestedbarrrels01.jpg



Correct me if I'm wrong.

Aren't the standard lightweight barrels the same profile as gov't profile under the handguards?  The lightweights are thinner outside the handguards (in front of the gas block), so the barrels would basically handle high-rate firing about the same, with the same results? (Considering same materials in manufacture).

I still prefer a somewhat heavier profile, but I also will never approach the rate of fire those barrels saw. Youtube videos show some of that destructive testing, it was brutal (and all full-auto with many mags of ammo).


I think you're correct in that a lightweight profile barrel would have failed the same way. However the shooter's arm would have been less tired after holding the lighter barrel for all those rounds. Therefore reinforcing the reasonings for my thread of what benefit does a gov contour have over a lightweight?


I believe the difference in weight of a LW barrel compared to gov't profile is only a few ounces. One way I heard it (one explanation) is the rail or handguards act as an exo-skeleton- (if not freefloated). Like a turtle shell or bug body, which really would be little strength, but I can picture it. Since I prefer a barrel heavy frontend for my target shooting, a lightweight barrel is not wanted (for me). I am not arguing for gov't profile, nor against LW barrels, just stating it as I see it.

Edit to add--> I do not remember the round count average for those barrels to fail, but was between 3-4 battle loads or thereabouts. Your arm would be tired, and you'd be in deep before any of us would/could see barrels fail like those (very hard in semi-auto fire). To me, there is no real good reason nowadays for preferring a gov't profile barrel (unless that's just what someone wants).

And, it did look like fun (till the end).

Re-edit to add link : Link to some barrel profiles
Link Posted: 12/18/2014 1:36:22 AM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Correct me if I'm wrong.

Aren't the standard lightweight barrels the same profile as gov't profile under the handguards?  The lightweights are thinner outside the handguards (in front of the gas block), so the barrels would basically handle high-rate firing about the same, with the same results? (Considering same materials in manufacture).

I still prefer a somewhat heavier profile, but I also will never approach the rate of fire those barrels saw. Youtube videos show some of that destructive testing, it was brutal (and all full-auto with many mags of ammo).
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's why I only use M4A1 profile.


Friends don't let friends use government profile barrels...

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Failures/destructivetestedbarrrels01.jpg



Correct me if I'm wrong.

Aren't the standard lightweight barrels the same profile as gov't profile under the handguards?  The lightweights are thinner outside the handguards (in front of the gas block), so the barrels would basically handle high-rate firing about the same, with the same results? (Considering same materials in manufacture).

I still prefer a somewhat heavier profile, but I also will never approach the rate of fire those barrels saw. Youtube videos show some of that destructive testing, it was brutal (and all full-auto with many mags of ammo).



I'm not sure if there is a "standard" for lightweight barrels, but the government profile under the handguards (.62") is similar to many "pencil" barrels...another type I'll never use.

I just received the barrel for my next project, a 7.62x39 AR, and the profile under the handguard is over .8" all the way to the gas block, its beefy.
Link Posted: 12/18/2014 5:34:41 AM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



I'm not sure if there is a "standard" for lightweight barrels, but the government profile under the handguards (.62") is similar to many "pencil" barrels...another type I'll never use.

I just received the barrel for my next project, a 7.62x39 AR, and the profile under the handguard is over .8" all the way to the gas block, its beefy.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's why I only use M4A1 profile.


Friends don't let friends use government profile barrels...

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Failures/destructivetestedbarrrels01.jpg



Correct me if I'm wrong.

Aren't the standard lightweight barrels the same profile as gov't profile under the handguards?  The lightweights are thinner outside the handguards (in front of the gas block), so the barrels would basically handle high-rate firing about the same, with the same results? (Considering same materials in manufacture).

I still prefer a somewhat heavier profile, but I also will never approach the rate of fire those barrels saw. Youtube videos show some of that destructive testing, it was brutal (and all full-auto with many mags of ammo).



I'm not sure if there is a "standard" for lightweight barrels, but the government profile under the handguards (.62") is similar to many "pencil" barrels...another type I'll never use.

I just received the barrel for my next project, a 7.62x39 AR, and the profile under the handguard is over .8" all the way to the gas block, its beefy.

My PSA (FN) lightweight barrel is the same thickness under the hand guard as in front of the FSB, the only places it flares out is at the chamber and at the FSB. It's slightly thicker than pencil. Pencil barrels are really thin.
Page AR-15 » AR Discussions
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top